Shanksville pics..?

It didn't atomize, most of the aircraft was recovered and is stored at Iron Mountain. But what exactly should happen when an aircraft hits the ground
in a nose dive, at high speed? There's not going to be much left that's recognizable.

It didn't atomize, most of the aircraft was recovered and is stored at Iron Mountain. But what exactly should happen when an aircraft hits the ground
in a nose dive, at high speed? There's not going to be much left that's recognizable.

most of the aircraft was recovered? this is news to me.

I've had a hard time pulling up that information. where have you read this?

When it smacks into the ground nose first. As the plane pushes nose first, it's just going to compact the ground and push into layers of growing
density.

Passat, it's a secret. Top soil is compactable, with the lower layers dense enough to support building foundations. Especially if the ground is
rocky or holds large deposits of clay. Maybe it's composed of both rocks and clay.

Psst, another secret. Sand is almost self compacting and is very dense. I heard sand can stop bullets and shrapnel when used in sand bags.

Point is. The ground is hard. It's going to fragment the plane if the plane strikes at an angle that doesn't allow for the crashing plane to glance
off into another direction.

Also, large parts of planes have the ability to burn up if the crash results in a fire and allowed to burn uncontrolled.

If you were as critical of the movement and spent as much time questioning the snake oil salespersons like Richard Gage, Steve Jones, and Dr Wood, you
would be closer to the truth. 911 conspiracies, they are like a religion.

flight 93 did not "atomize." where did you get this information from?

i have never mentioned any of the people you're connecting me to in my posts.

There were multiple news articles at the time. There were differing accounts as to how much, but it was quite a bit of the aircraft. They took 10
construction bins to Iron Mountain and placed them into storage, filled with wreckage.

Please tell us what the Shanksville crash site should look. Typical conspiracist. Will not answer a simple and direct question. Like the truth will
interfere with their religious like belief.

Nice to ignore the statement planes can be destroyed by uncontrolled fires.

I just posted a vedio showing the devastating effects of an aircraft hitting a solid object head on at high speed. Also stated large portions of
planes can be totally destroyed in the event of an controlled fire.

Planes hitting soild objects head on at high speed tend to atomize.

And you are right, the amount of atomization depends on tbe density, angle, and size of the object the plane hits.

BUT, there is nothing unusual about the Shanksville crash site. That is the point. Are you saying the earth is not soild? How big should the
fragments of airplane be? Sorry. Simple physics.

Concrete can be up to 150 pound per cubic foot. Sand can be up to 130 pounds pet cubic foot.

There is nothing unusual about the Shanksville crash site. Sorry if this interferes with your pseudoscience.

So to continue, you need to prove:

That aircraft traveling at 500 mph do not tend to atomize when hitting a soild object head on. The earth is massive, dense, and solid.

What the Shanksville's crash site should look like.

What the average size of the crash fragments should be.

Bottom line, I made a point. There was nothing unusual about the plane totally fracturing into small and almost unrecognizable wreckage at
Shanksville.

Back in the 70s or early 80s an A-6 went in almost straight down, and was near mach 1 at impact. They found the engines compressed to roughly 3 feet
long, six feet underground. Those were about the biggest pieces found.

Please tell us what the Shanksville crash site should look. Typical conspiracist. Will not answer a simple and direct question. Like the truth will
interfere with their religious like belief.

Nice to ignore the statement planes can be destroyed by uncontrolled fires.

I just posted a vedio showing the devastating effects of an aircraft hitting a solid object head on at high speed. Also stated large portions of
planes can be totally destroyed in the event of an controlled fire.

Planes hitting soild objects head on at high speed tend to atomize.

And you are right, the amount of atomization depends on tbe density, angle, and size of the object the plane hits.

BUT, there is nothing unusual about the Shanksville crash site. That is the point. Are you saying the earth is not soild? How big should the
fragments of airplane be? Sorry. Simple physics.

Concrete can be up to 150 pound per cubic foot. Sand can be up to 130 pounds pet cubic foot.

There is nothing unusual about the Shanksville crash site. Sorry if this interferes with your pseudoscience.

So to continue, you need to prove:

That aircraft traveling at 500 mph do not tend to atomize when hitting a soild object head on. The earth is massive, dense, and solid.

What the Shanksville's crash site should look like.

What the average size of the crash fragments should be.

Bottom line, I made a point. There was nothing unusual about the plane totally fracturing into small and almost unrecognizable wreckage at
Shanksville.

so I tell you "the plane did not atomize," which is true, and you call me a 'typical conspiracist' and a 'pseudoscientist.' lol, seriously? you must
be a riot to have in-person disagreements with. how long do you typically go before putting a label on someone you don't know just because they don't
agree with you?

the plane did not atomize. this much is true.

what *should* it look like? I'm not an aviation expert, let alone one that has first hand experience with crash sites.

I don't know what the crash should have looked like, aside from knowing that it definitely would not look like something "atomized."

judging from other plane crashes throughout history, planes typically leave a noticeable trace of their wreckage.

The front section bounced in to the bush says fbi and the coroner. No atomization. Engine found in pond so they say and don't forget they found
hijackers passport, headband and box cutter in almost perfect condition.

The crater is around 15 feet wide and there are no wing impacts. Just a small oblong crater.

The only time planes even look like they're atomizing is when they hit a hard object, like the concrete wall in that video. There's always something
recognizable left, just in crashes of this type not large pieces of wreckage that people are used to seeing. Sometimes that recognizable piece is
nothing but a flap or wheel, but something is left.

In the case of the Flight 93 engine, before it hit, it was reported that they were rolling from side to side. Engines aren't designed to handle that
kind of stress, and tend to separate when it happens long enough.

Its not a matter if wreckage is at the site. Its a matter what condition the wreckage is in. Its a matter if the plane hits head on or skids. The
speed of the plane during the crash.

How many airplanes hit straight into the ground?

Still ignoring large parts of planes can be utterly destroy during uncontrolled fires.

Its physics! Planes hitting solid objects head on at high speeds tends to result in wreckage that is totally fragmented and deformed. The majority of
the individual parts of the plane are fragmented into bits and dust that makes them amost impossible or impossible to identify.

Is this a false statement?

How would this not apply flight 93?

Was there fire damage?

What parts should we see? Especially in a wide angle photo of a crash site. When was the picture taken anyway? After they started clearing wreckage
from the crater?

Why do conspiracy theories rely on pictures taken out of context and with no proof when the photo was taken?

Why do conspiracy theories try to imply the wreckage would tend to be whole when its proven planes hitting solid ojects head on at high speed tend to
atomize.

We can substitute atomize with bits and dust if it's less intimidating?

Everyone fails at trying to explain where the wings went since none hit the ground. What the ignorant claim are wing scars is really an weathered
drainage ditch since the soil was loose and soft not hard like the liars like to say.

I recommend go ogling and research these things. Some Web sites frown upon the facts.

The wings are hollow shells, even more fragile than the fuselage. There are places along them where, if you step, you can put your foot through the
skin. The spar is the strongest portion of the wing, and it doesn't run the length of the wing.

Like the engine struts, the wings are designed to take stress in very specific ways. Put stress on them in different ways and they fail. A vertical
impact is one of those ways they will fail.

Everyone fails at trying to explain where the wings went since none hit the ground. What the ignorant claim are wing scars is really an weathered
drainage ditch since the soil was loose and soft not hard like the liars like to say.

I recommend go ogling and research these things. Some Web sites frown upon the facts.

Prove the wings, being light and less massive, did not have the tendency to pull / fold against the fuselage as the wing sections pushed into the
crater started by the nose? Especially, when the air speed and force was already pushing against the wings.

The wings still traveling at 500 mph plus would have turned to bits as pointed out.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.